There is a book titled "See you in 100 years" that catalogues and documents what are likely left leaning libs trying to survive on their own as though it was the late 1800's. Fascinating insight into what it takes. They give it their all and end up succeeding - but likely became less "lib" because of it. IMO great book, not because of the prose but because of the revelations within it. the TLDR is self sustaining without modern power functionally takes all your time up. You have to worry about how many calories you are burning vs. how many you are planting - especially when just starting out.
Also gender/sex differences DO matter- significantly - and if you ignore them, you die.
They give it their all and end up succeeding - but likely became less "lib" because of it.
Imagine spending years of blood, sweat, and tears, earning the experience required to finally achieve and maintain a sustainable living for your family from the earth itself....then one day an unemployed talentless political science major shows up and claims that you're morally obligated to feed and shelter him as well, because you have the means. (And that also, you should probably stop raising chickens because meat is murder).
Sure. In the book they decide to change "roles" for the day, The guy would take care of the toddler and the house work while the wife would take care of the fields. She simply did not have the physical ability to get enough of the work done by the time it would have needed to have been done for them to maintain their, at the time, farm. Essentially the reality of the physical differences between men and women came to the forefront when your life depends on the food you are planting and caring for today determines if you will survive the winter.
Men are stronger, - they have larger lung capacity than women, men can simply do "more work" than women in the same amount of time (physical). This isn't a mystery. If SOMEONE has to watch the kid and keep to the stove and the house - who should do it, the man, or the woman if the other job is to work in the fields?
There is also some interesting concepts of the equation of Calories burned to generate future calories to burn. If you are running at a deficit you are in trouble and may even be able to spot the trouble months out. But also taking into account during winter months you will be more sedentary so will not have to necessarily worry -as much - about daily calories available. Do you have a reserve? etc.
The perspective of food scarcity also puts into perspective how special "Feasts" were back in the day - Modern day has completely erased the importance of a feast back in the day because we have lost the perspective of how important food is and how difficult (without modern power) it is to develop/cultivate - Further - that's not accounting for famine or bad crops.
It's a really interesting book for this kind of practical data.
There is a book titled "See you in 100 years" that catalogues and documents what are likely left leaning libs trying to survive on their own as though it was the late 1800's. Fascinating insight into what it takes. They give it their all and end up succeeding - but likely became less "lib" because of it. IMO great book, not because of the prose but because of the revelations within it. the TLDR is self sustaining without modern power functionally takes all your time up. You have to worry about how many calories you are burning vs. how many you are planting - especially when just starting out.
Also gender/sex differences DO matter- significantly - and if you ignore them, you die.
Imagine spending years of blood, sweat, and tears, earning the experience required to finally achieve and maintain a sustainable living for your family from the earth itself....then one day an unemployed talentless political science major shows up and claims that you're morally obligated to feed and shelter him as well, because you have the means. (And that also, you should probably stop raising chickens because meat is murder).
Sure. In the book they decide to change "roles" for the day, The guy would take care of the toddler and the house work while the wife would take care of the fields. She simply did not have the physical ability to get enough of the work done by the time it would have needed to have been done for them to maintain their, at the time, farm. Essentially the reality of the physical differences between men and women came to the forefront when your life depends on the food you are planting and caring for today determines if you will survive the winter.
Men are stronger, - they have larger lung capacity than women, men can simply do "more work" than women in the same amount of time (physical). This isn't a mystery. If SOMEONE has to watch the kid and keep to the stove and the house - who should do it, the man, or the woman if the other job is to work in the fields?
There is also some interesting concepts of the equation of Calories burned to generate future calories to burn. If you are running at a deficit you are in trouble and may even be able to spot the trouble months out. But also taking into account during winter months you will be more sedentary so will not have to necessarily worry -as much - about daily calories available. Do you have a reserve? etc.
The perspective of food scarcity also puts into perspective how special "Feasts" were back in the day - Modern day has completely erased the importance of a feast back in the day because we have lost the perspective of how important food is and how difficult (without modern power) it is to develop/cultivate - Further - that's not accounting for famine or bad crops.
It's a really interesting book for this kind of practical data.
Just look at the suicide rates of those ignoring them now...
lets have a 100% female military. what could possibly go wrong if they all died?